There are a variety of folks here so I have a question for you all, well, less "a question", more of a general enquiry. Imagine yourself as the individual target of this enquiry and answer accordingly.

Given that you are aware of current issues in the world, some historical context, some professional or technical areas of expertise, and at least the bare bones of psychology and sociology, how do you function? How do you live a "good" life (whatever that may mean)?

I haven't properly thought this through as a question yet so forgive my rambling, but I'll try to elaborate/explain. Taking a purely personal perspective, I am aware of, for example, my disposable income and its potential utility, or my choices of what to purchase and where. I could buy the "fairtrade" X (assuming the "fairtrade" credentials were as claimed) or the "green" Y (again assuming that the product was not greenwashed), but then I could also give my money to a charity, micro-loan foundation, or some such altruistic cause.

I am in the privileged position to have disposable income to some extent (vastly more than most people on the planet, much more vastly less than a few!), this isn't the case for everyone. I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that my future is a) relatively stable, b) provided for in some modest fashion and that my current modest-ish-but-more-than-adequate lifestyle can be maintained. Hell, I HAVE a lifestyle, that beats, materially, what ~4 to 5 billion people on the planet have. I am lucky to be even able to consider this issue.

Unlike some of my more socially/politically conservative social circle, and unlike their more capitalist confrères, I can't simply use denial as a tool to excuse my actions. Or even pretend that Keynes never lived, or that trickle down economics actually works in isolation. For example, I accept that "global warming" is a set of processes aggravated by human activity based on the best science I am aware of. Just like I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the development of life on this planet, and the best explanation for its diversity. The point here is not to argue the merits of any specific case, but to answer (I suppose) the question "I cannot unsee what I have seen, or unknow what I know, what do I do next?".

I am aware that to varying extents we are all hypocrites. I know, for example, that many electronic products are made in work environments that are dangerous for the workers. Workers who are paid sub-par wages and exploited to a greater extent than I am. The materials that go into these devices are typically either scarce, derived from environmentally damaging processes or themselves problematic in some fashion. Yet I still own a plethora of nice, shiny, top end devices, feel little guilt (perhaps rightly) for doing so and will buy more in the future.

I'm not looking for the standard knee jerk stupidity of the liberal hair shirt or the conservative denialist. Neither suffices. Nor am I looking for an excuse to continue as I have. I will not be basket weaving an iPhone out of a sustainable placenta and moving to a yurt, nor will I turn the stereo up in my Hummer to block the sounds as I crush the corpses of Chinese sweatshop workers by repeatedly backing over them. I am merely caught in a quandary about how to conduct myself in a world where I am increasingly aware that *I* am part of the problem to a greater extent than I am part of the solution. Whatever either the problem or the solution might be.

It is exceedingly annoying that whoever I pose this sort of question too (in shorter verbal form I confess) falls almost immediately into one of three almost stereotypical camps:

1) The uber-hypocritical (wealthy) metropolitan liberal who thinks that making their own muesli renders them ethically superior (gag me with an ethically sourced recyclable wooden foetus knitter).

2) The denialist capitalist/conservative who thinks the question of responsibility in matters economic is somehow anathema and that I am a commie for even thinking that there may be an alternative (pass me a rifle) .

3) The apathetic.

I almost have some respect for 3). If someone is apathetic or genuinely uninformed, or just stupid, that I have little problem with. Bear in mind also that, whilst I have tried to tune my descriptions to an American audience, I am coming from a very European outlook, so "liberal"/"conservative" etc may have wrinkles that aren't universal to all.

Have at it.

Louis

ETA: I think I should probably not mention this, but I will anyway. The issue that got me thinking about all of this, a couple of years ago, was feminism. Recalling epic instances of learned sexism in my past and facepalming myself practically unconscious was a big epiphany. I don't think I'm all the way "there" yet, wherever "there" is, on any issue. But I like to think I'm making the attempt and at least aware of my contributions to the problems as opposed to pretending it all has nothing to do with me.

We live in a world (occident) dominated by consumerism. There's not much you or I can do about it. For one thousand people taking steps to soften the burden of those in dire economical distress, there will always be a million other people not giving a damn and thinking about their material confort.

I myself am not interested in material things, much. I only live with the minimum required (fridge, stove, oven, toilets, laptop...). It's not much at all and is largely enough to live a good (great) life. The money I get, I spend mostly on food, booze, cigarets and gifts to my loved ones. So no real major guilt for me there.

But I also keep in mind that those being exploited for the making of material goods are not my personal responsibility. Sure, I am part of this system, but the main entities responsible for this state of affair are, in my opinion, governments and corporations. If there is a correct action to take, it would probably be to put pressure on those. But boycotting a product, for exemple, would never work because, as I stated above, for a thousand activists there will always be a million dont-give-a-fuck-ers.

You can live in a yurt and eat home-made goatcheese, but it will never stop corporations to slave poor people on the other side of the planet.

One of my live guitarists is a communist, and a vegetarian. He used to love meat but decided to stop eating any. When arguying with him, he just told me "I might not make a difference now, but with time more people will probably join me". Nice, if a bit utopic, bordering on ubris. But at least he feels very good with himself.

Each to his/her own, I guess...

PS: It is quite possible I haven't a clue what you're talking about and just commited a major OT. But I don't care, so there!

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

A very provocative contemplation Louis. I must confess that I've had similar contemplations from time-to-time.

For the most part I'm with SD on this from an intellectual standpoint - I've come to the conclusion that I can only accept direct responsibility for so much . Call it a domain of control (that's what my wife terms it). At some point, one has to recognize that although each of us as individuals contribute to the way the world is at any given instant, we are not responsible for it getting this way. It has evolved, for lack of more accurately descriptive word, into the current state through many varied events throughout history. Nothing you or I do can change where the world we have now came from.

So, your question, as I see it - or at least as I've phrased it to myself - is, do I accept the world the way it is and thus live my life within the structures and conditions that entails - go along with the status quo, as it were - or do I reject this world and try to survive outside the human societal structure. Those are the only to realistic options as I see it. The only other, as far as I can tell, is just to say EFF It! and commit suicide, but that to me is no more than punting; it doesn't address the root issue.

Alas, I think only you can answer the question for yourself. I know for myself that I cannot survive for long outside the human system that exists; I am, in a very literal sense, a product of it. But even beyond that, I don't want to. Yes...I'm with you in not being able to unsee and unknow those things that frustrate, disappoint, sadden, anger, and horrify me, but I also cannot ignore those things that impress, comfort, entertain, inspire, and restore me.

The world is a balance, Louis, at least that's what I've found. To me then, leading a "good" life is making the attempt to walk that thin line that defines the balance between what you like and what you don't and try, within whatever limits, comfort, and motivation one feels he or she has, to try to influence those former things one sees with the latter. That is, to whatever extent it "feels right", try to influence those things that frustrate, disappoint, sadden, anger, and horrify you with things that impress, comfort, entertain, inspire, and restore you. You won't be able to affect very much I'm sure, but then so what? The only benchmark you can possibly (well...realistically) rely upon as a valid measure of success is your own ability, limits, and satisfaction. What else is there?

Hmmm...this is a hard medium in which to discuss such philosophical thoughts, Louis. We definitely need to sit down with some beers for a few hours over this.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

I have often considered this as well and I am left wondering not so much how to conduct myself in an appropriate manner, but how the hell to convince every else to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

First let me say that I was raised Christian... Southern Baptist actually. I got better. My family was not affluent, but they allowed me most of what I wanted. Instead of spoiled, as I learned about the environment and economics and many other things, I grew out of it.

I know I'm not perfect, but I try. My recycling can is full every week, while the garbage can (the same size) is barely a third full. My car is not that efficient, but it's better than most.

If I had the money, I would have a wind turbine and solar panels and a pure electric car. Not because it would convince everyone else, but because it would allow me to live with myself.

And that is, I think, my take home lesson. You're right, you can't unlearn or unsee. But you can do 'the right thing' for the sake of your own sanity. What is the right thing? Well, that's up to you. Is it helping the environment by recycling or turning the lights off, is it contributing to a charity (more on that in a minute), is it donating time to a soup kitchen or a school for adults?

You have to do whatever it is that you can do that you think will help. You are the one that has to look yourself in the mirror and say, "I did good yesterday"... or "Man, I was a shit yesterday".

I'm not sure if that was the direction you were going, but that's my opinion (of course that and $4.50 will get you a cup of coffee... or you could make your own cup for $0.25).

___

A note on charities. The CEO of the company I work for made her annual visit to our location for the yearly report (it was very good). But she told the story of a for-profit school in Kenya. Our company purchased the company in Kenya and is looking to expand the concept all over the world.

This company goes into a village and builds a 'school'. A very basic building, usually without electricity. Tin roofs, tin walls (maybe), but there are tables and benches for the students. The teachers are given 8 weeks of intensive training on administration and teaching.

It costs parents in the village $4 per month to send a child to the school. Keep in mind that most of the villagers make less than $2 per day. The parents send their kids as soon as the school is open, but often don't pay the first day. They are used to charities running schools, so they just don't pay. The second day, the kids are sent home if the parents don't pay. So far, every parent, in every village (and there are a lot) have paid to have their child go to school.

The school, pays the teacher, pays a villager to maintain the building, pays the women of the village to cook lunches for the kids.

The parents get involved. They are spending their hard earned money to give their kids an education, so they are involved. They want to know that the kids ar doing well and the kids are taught to behave in school by the parents.

So far, the majority of the kids have gone from being illterate and no math skills to on grade level skills in months or just a few years, not 10-12 either less than 3 in all cases.

The schools are helping to bootstrap the economy of the village. They are educating. They are making a difference. Whereas the charities came in, taught until their money ran out and then left. Everything was free, so there was no motivation, there were no gains in the economy, etc.

I'm not a fan of those types of charities. I am not a fan of religious charities. I am a fan of disaster relief and charities that make the recepient a part of the process (habitat for humanities for example, but I have a seperate issue with them too).

Mostly, I give my donations to animal and environmental based charities. Animals can't help themselves against the depredations of humans. We have to help them. That's my 'morality' if you will... that's what allows me to sleep at night. If a cat or dog doesn't have to die because I gave the shelter a few bucks and a couple bags of cat food, then I have made a difference in a life... even if its not human.

OK... shutting up now.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

But seriously, you bring up some excellent points, and I am also with you about respecting this board - thanks Wes - and the regular posters. (No. NOT you IBIG / FL)

I like Robin's approach, it makes sense to me, and closely approaches what I do. I might differ in that I might be more aggressive about my atheism views, and whether or not to take a more activist stance on issues. For example, I was @ 30 miles from Madison WI for the first phase of their anti-Gov sit-in protest, but did not go join the protestors. And back in college I would have been helping to organize them.

So now I might be more inclined to write "sternly worded letters" than make a sign and play Poke A Pig. But I still care, and have tried to pass that on to The Kidz, and that's the take home message, right?

O.K. We will now take out our Hymnals, and please join in, at least on the chorus:

I have often considered this as well and I am left wondering not so much how to conduct myself in an appropriate manner, but how the hell to convince every else to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Nice post Ogre. I just wanted to address this one point though because it's something I tend to think about a lot.

I've come to believe over the years - in many ways from reading and joining in discussions on boards such as this - that the worst thing we as humans do in the world is try to convince others to live by our own codes of "appropriateness". Think about the creationist/ID movement for just a second, or better still places in the world where dictators rule or the Taliban runs things, and you can quickly appreciate the extreme of this mindset.

I truly believe that the one thing the bible gets absolutely perfect is the caution against judging others. There is absolutely no way that holding some else accountable to my standards and expecting them to behave as I would in all situations could ever possibly lead to anything other than frustration and bad feelings in the long run. Why? Because *I* can't even live up to my own standards all the time. How can I expect anyone else to fully comply with them and ever be satisfied? Worse, how can I expect anyone else to be satisfied with him or herself in such a situation and ultimately not end up resenting me for how he or she feels? I really don't see any situation in which the outcome could be anything other than strife.

In fact, I attribute nearly all social ills to this one human tendency and truly believe that if we humans genuinely sat down with ourselves and agreed to judge only our own actions by our own standards and hold ourselves accountable to those standards, 80% of the problems in the world would go away.

Now, this is extremely idealistic. I know that. It's also highly unrealistic and, in many ways, impractical, particularly with the world as it is now. For example, we are, for better or worse, societal as well as nationalistic now. I don't see any practical means of sustaining us as organisms in such groups at this point without some form of governing. And I think Churchill was right - democracy is the worst form of such governing except for all the others that have ever been tried from time to time. So it's what works at the moment, but it still requires judging folks against standards that are not their own.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

I have often considered this as well and I am left wondering not so much how to conduct myself in an appropriate manner, but how the hell to convince every else to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

Nice post Ogre. I just wanted to address this one point though because it's something I tend to think about a lot.

I've come to believe over the years - in many ways from reading and joining in discussions on boards such as this - that the worst thing we as humans do in the world is try to convince others to live by our own codes of "appropriateness". Think about the creationist/ID movement for just a second, or better still places in the world where dictators rule or the Taliban runs things, and you can quickly appreciate the extreme of this mindset.

I truly believe that the one thing the bible gets absolutely perfect is the caution against judging others. There is absolutely no way that holding some else accountable to my standards and expecting them to behave as I would in all situations could ever possibly lead to anything other than frustration and bad feelings in the long run. Why? Because *I* can't even live up to my own standards all the time. How can I expect anyone else to fully comply with them and ever be satisfied? Worse, how can I expect anyone else to be satisfied with him or herself in such a situation and ultimately not end up resenting me for how he or she feels? I really don't see any situation in which the outcome could be anything other than strife.

In fact, I attribute nearly all social ills to this one human tendency and truly believe that if we humans genuinely sat down with ourselves and agreed to judge only our own actions by our own standards and hold ourselves accountable to those standards, 80% of the problems in the world would go away.

Now, this is extremely idealistic. I know that. It's also highly unrealistic and, in many ways, impractical, particularly with the world as it is now. For example, we are, for better or worse, societal as well as nationalistic now. I don't see any practical means of sustaining us as organisms in such groups at this point without some form of governing. And I think Churchill was right - democracy is the worst form of such governing except for all the others that have ever been tried from time to time. So it's what works at the moment, but it still requires judging folks against standards that are not their own.

Oy, it's Friday... two posts that require thinking on the same day?... sigh.

Now that you state it thusly, I agree with you... up to a point.

My philosophy is much like the pagan's. Do what you will provided no harm comes to others.

If someone really wants to kill themselves with a gun or drugs or whatever, then I can't stop them. If that person wants to make poor life decisions, I can offer them my support and love and advice, but I can't stop them.

On the other hand, if someone's lifde decisions are harming others (like their children), then I have a duty to stop them. Not for them, but for the harm that could be avoided for others.

Likewise, with (especially) the environment. I feel very strongly about the damage done by fossil fuels because I grew up in a refinery town. Most people, even avid environmentalists, have no concept of what it's like to live in the middle of a refinery... I do. (See my blog on why global warming deniers hate you.)

So yes, when it's one person, I don't care. When they are actively involved in harming others by action or inaction,then I think we have a duty to redirect their behavior (by legal means, I don't advocate threats or application of force to do anything except protect my family).

Again, it's a question of society vs. the indivdual. I think that we evolved from tribal creatures and the concept of a society is in our genes. Some members tend to take advantage of that to gain power or other percieved benefits (like the people you mentioned). But it's pretty easy to identify them, they are working for themselves, not for the good of the society.

Thanks for helping me to articulate these things.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I think it's a start if you are concerned enough to consider the issues. Being good ecologically usually involves economic choices. For example, we are building (well, strictly, my excellent maçon, Moustapha, is building) a new house. Size, choice of materials (straw bales and old tyres a step too far for me), insulation levels, type of heating (Mrs F has ruled out oil or gas so its logs and/or a heat pump) all have an ecological consideration that comes at a cost. You do what you can to tread lightly on the Earth but convincing others that excessive consumption and continued economic growth is undesirable and unsustainable may achieve more than individual action.

It's been fashionable in my part of the world (Vancouver Island) to consider the 100-mile diet, i.e., only eat things that grow within a hundred miles.

Nice idea, but not only would my neighbours and I have to give up oranges, bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa, and similar exotica, we couldn't even make bread, unless it was corn bread, or made somehow from potato flour.

So, paradoxically, while we have become a global village in the sense of commerce/trade/necessities, the village itself is so gigantic that its individual members are like the guy in the Total Perspective Vortex.

"What then, must we do?"

I dunno. Don't buy Nike's. Yeah, look for fair trade products. Walk or take the bus when you can. Share information, like what a scam CFL's are. Knowledge is power.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Good would seem to be contextual. Good for me? You? Us? Humanity? Life?

Can a good atheist be better than a good christian? Discuss!

Set as an essay in RI many moons ago. My answer, it all depends what you mean by good. ;)

Well, if you define 'good' as 'following God's Law', then no atheist can ever be good. Which must be what those hater Christians are doing, because most of the Christians I have known in my 38 years have been utter a-holes with no thought except for themselves... except on Sunday morning.

While, every single atheist I have met has been polite, kind, and intelligent.

Admitedly, it's a slightly biased sample. But for any of my definitions of the word 'good', atheists win, hands down. BTW: My definition of the word 'good' includes being able to critically analyze ones own behavior for inconsistancies and hypocritical concepts. We all have them, at least thinking people can self-reflect and identify them, if not completely remove them.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Good would seem to be contextual. Good for me? You? Us? Humanity? Life?

Can a good atheist be better than a good christian? Discuss!

Set as an essay in RI many moons ago. My answer, it all depends what you mean by good. ;)

I'm going with "Once one has a definition of good that both groups agree upon then yes. Because the Christian is potentially doing good out of fear of god, compulsion by god, or greed for rewards by god, depending on their theological outlook. The atheist cannot, by definition, be doing any of these. All other standard human reasons for doing good apply equally to both large, diverse sets."

"Graffiti is done neither for financial reward or personal acclaim, therefore is the purest form of art. Discuss!"

...the Christian is potentially doing good out of fear of god, compulsion by god, or greed for rewards by god, depending on their theological outlook. The atheist cannot, by definition, be doing any of these.

"Graffiti is done neither for financial reward or personal acclaim, therefore is the purest form of art. Discuss!"

Louis (Not at all derailing his own thread)

No. Logical fallacy dude. False dichotomy. Other forms of art can be done for neither financial reward or personal acclaim.

Further graffiti is often done to mark gang territory and is therefore a form of communication rather than pure art (which judging by some of the shows I've been too involves flinging paint onto a canvas from more than 10 meters away or giant penises).

Considering all the money my wife is putting into her Master of Fine Arts in studio art degree... her art process is negative in terms of reward.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

It's been fashionable in my part of the world (Vancouver Island) to consider the 100-mile diet, i.e., only eat things that grow within a hundred miles.

Nice idea, but not only would my neighbours and I have to give up oranges, bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa, and similar exotica, we couldn't even make bread, unless it was corn bread, or made somehow from potato flour.

So, paradoxically, while we have become a global village in the sense of commerce/trade/necessities, the village itself is so gigantic that its individual members are like the guy in the Total Perspective Vortex.

"What then, must we do?"

I dunno. Don't buy Nike's. Yeah, look for fair trade products. Walk or take the bus when you can. Share information, like what a scam CFL's are. Knowledge is power.

Share information? Do we need to get Joe in here too?

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

It's been fashionable in my part of the world (Vancouver Island) to consider the 100-mile diet, i.e., only eat things that grow within a hundred miles.

Nice idea, but not only would my neighbours and I have to give up oranges, bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa, and similar exotica, we couldn't even make bread, unless it was corn bread, or made somehow from potato flour.

So, paradoxically, while we have become a global village in the sense of commerce/trade/necessities, the village itself is so gigantic that its individual members are like the guy in the Total Perspective Vortex.

"What then, must we do?"

I dunno. Don't buy Nike's. Yeah, look for fair trade products. Walk or take the bus when you can. Share information, like what a scam CFL's are. Knowledge is power.

Share information? Do we need to get Joe in here too?

I'm declaring this a subset of Godwining a thread.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

"Graffiti is done neither for financial reward or personal acclaim, therefore is the purest form of art. Discuss!"

Louis (Not at all derailing his own thread)

No. Logical fallacy dude. False dichotomy. Other forms of art can be done for neither financial reward or personal acclaim.

Further graffiti is often done to mark gang territory and is therefore a form of communication rather than pure art (which judging by some of the shows I've been too involves flinging paint onto a canvas from more than 10 meters away or giant penises).

Considering all the money my wife is putting into her Master of Fine Arts in studio art degree... her art process is negative in terms of reward.

Indeed - back in Chicago we (ok, I and those I knew) used graffiti to mean gang signs mostly, and art that was put up without any permission from the owner. Further, a lot of graffiti is put up for personal acclaim - look at this "banksey" (or whatever his name is) - people at large may not know who he is (or care, to be honest), but if anybody thinks he isn't doing it for the acclaim...well, I doubt it doesn't figure into it. So, the premise may not even be true in that way. Unless someone does it in the dark, there's always someone who knows, and even if it is done in secret, the artist usually lives in the area and can appreciate (in secret) the acclaim of the others in the neighborhood, if it is good.

Just my thoughts.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

My philosophy is much like the pagan's. Do what you will provided no harm comes to others.

Yes, I know this philosophy, but I can only accept it to a point...

Quote

On the other hand, if someone's lifde decisions are harming others (like their children), then I have a duty to stop them. Not for them, but for the harm that could be avoided for others.

Likewise, with (especially) the environment. I feel very strongly about the damage done by fossil fuels because I grew up in a refinery town. Most people, even avid environmentalists, have no concept of what it's like to live in the middle of a refinery... I do. (See my blog on why global warming deniers hate you.)

So yes, when it's one person, I don't care. When they are actively involved in harming others by action or inaction,then I think we have a duty to redirect their behavior (by legal means, I don't advocate threats or application of force to do anything except protect my family).

...and here is that point.

The problem I have with this perspective is that I see it both as arrogant and short-sighted. That may sound really dispassionate and uncaring, but bare with me a moment.

There's a quote I particularly like that goes something like this (I know the exact quote, but for purposes of this discussion it isn't important, nor do I want, to get it exact):

Quote

Many who live cause great pain and suffering and deserve death, yet there are also many who have died untimely who could really have done great things had they lived longer. Can you bring the latter folks back to life? Why then do you think you have the authority to put the former people to death, or that you have the foresight to know that killing them now is best? I would caution against being so rash in dealing out such judgments. We can never see all ends and the outcomes of all actions; and even those who cause great suffering can be the cause of that which brings life and happiness to more people down the road.

I think of this quote when faced with the suffering caused by others upon those who cannot protect themselves. Who am I to decide that interfering with those who cause suffering is the best thing that can be done? Further, why am I interfering? Is it to prevent the infringement on the sufferers' standards, or my own?

I have only a limited domain of control and thus must consider the sufferers' domains of control as well. If they do not wish to defend their own stands, even to the point of risking their own safety and lives, who am I to do so for them?

I think of it this way. I have the benefit of a long, fairly well-documented history on the effect of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and his assassination. I know that if MLK had lived, he would have continued to do great things through continuing to shape people's attitude towards what it means to be human and equal in humanity. Yet, if I were presented with the ability to travel back in time and the means to prevent his assassination, would I? I don't know, but I doubt it. I'm well aware of the effect his assassination has had; it's improved the lives of millions in a relatively short time. Was his death a good thing? No, I really believe it was not, but then I also think that out it - and specifically because of the way it occurred - came a much greater, much more profound recognition and attitude change.

I don't profess to have the wisdom of Solomon or anything like that, but in thinking about this a bit, I have a real hard time thinking that my emotional and visceral responses to behaviors that inflict suffering on others are a sufficient basis for my judging the action unacceptable and overtly inhibiting or preventing that behavior. Certainly I can think that the behavior is wrong (and most definitely wrong for me to engage in), but I don't know that, in and of itself, that is a good enough reason to intervene.

Quote

Again, it's a question of society vs. the indivdual. I think that we evolved from tribal creatures and the concept of a society is in our genes. Some members tend to take advantage of that to gain power or other percieved benefits (like the people you mentioned). But it's pretty easy to identify them, they are working for themselves, not for the good of the society.

Yeah...true. Hence, I counter my idealistic perspective as rambled above with a recognition that at some point we need governance and we have to determine the parameters of that governance. That's the problem with reality...it isn't black and white.

Quote

Thanks for helping me to articulate these things.

Hmmm...not sure what I did, but you're welcome.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Robin, I totally agree that many things are not black and white. On the other hand, many things are black and white. Slavery is wrong. Murder is wrong. Child labor and child soldiers is wrong.

I fully realize that many cases could be made for all of these things being 'good' (for some value of the word good).

Likewise with Martin Luther King. If he had freely chosen to die to bring about the changes he wanted, then that's one thing. But to be killed, without being given a choice, even if many good things came from it, that I still think is wrong.

Would more people have suffered for longer if King hadn't been killed? Maybe, maybe not. With the clarity of hindsight and the rightesnous of someone who knows the past cannot be undone, I think everyone would have preferred he not have been killed.

On the other hand, had he known what the results of his death would have been, would he have been willing to sacrifice himself for those? I think that he would have been willing to do that, from what I know of him.

I don't know if that helps any.

We're to the one guy tied to the railway and the three kids tied to the other railway. You throw the switch and choose who lives and who dies. It sucks and it is a moral quandry.

Environmental issues are easier. We fix it, or everyone on the planet suffers.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

It's been fashionable in my part of the world (Vancouver Island) to consider the 100-mile diet, i.e., only eat things that grow within a hundred miles.

Nice idea, but not only would my neighbours and I have to give up oranges, bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa, and similar exotica, we couldn't even make bread, unless it was corn bread, or made somehow from potato flour.

So, paradoxically, while we have become a global village in the sense of commerce/trade/necessities, the village itself is so gigantic that its individual members are like the guy in the Total Perspective Vortex.

"What then, must we do?"

I dunno. Don't buy Nike's. Yeah, look for fair trade products. Walk or take the bus when you can. Share information, like what a scam CFL's are. Knowledge is power.

The problem with the eat local things is that in the end you have more people driving smaller trucks making more total stops so it may not be greener. For instance you might have an orchard 50 miles away that used to get visited once a day by a large more efficient truck. It now gets visited 10 times a day by smaller less efficient trucks.

It's been fashionable in my part of the world (Vancouver Island) to consider the 100-mile diet, i.e., only eat things that grow within a hundred miles.

Nice idea, but not only would my neighbours and I have to give up oranges, bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa, and similar exotica, we couldn't even make bread, unless it was corn bread, or made somehow from potato flour.

So, paradoxically, while we have become a global village in the sense of commerce/trade/necessities, the village itself is so gigantic that its individual members are like the guy in the Total Perspective Vortex.

"What then, must we do?"

I dunno. Don't buy Nike's. Yeah, look for fair trade products. Walk or take the bus when you can. Share information, like what a scam CFL's are. Knowledge is power.

The problem with the eat local things is that in the end you have more people driving smaller trucks making more total stops so it may not be greener. For instance you might have an orchard 50 miles away that used to get visited once a day by a large more efficient truck. It now gets visited 10 times a day by smaller less efficient trucks.

It might in fact be greener visiting a Walmart.

But the demand for locally grown foods pressures the local grocery store to buy local (I've seen a lot of stuff labeled as such in the produce section lately). One big truck makes all the stops, I use exactly the same amount of gas to go grocery shopping as I did before.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

I'm chewing on your OP, Louis, but honestly, given the current trend in US politics, I'm drifting into the apathetic camp.

If people in the country with the most powerful nukes in the world are stupid enough to keep voting in the nutbags (and the evidence indicates they are), there'll be a nuclear holocaust shortly and none of it will matter.

I'll keep chewing and perhaps come up with a less depressing answer at some point.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

The problem with the eat local things is that in the end you have more people driving smaller trucks making more total stops so it may not be greener. For instance you might have an orchard 50 miles away that used to get visited once a day by a large more efficient truck. It now gets visited 10 times a day by smaller less efficient trucks.

It might in fact be greener visiting a Walmart.

So I've heard. I haven't investigated so can't really comment one way or the other.

There are a couple of local farms here that get busy on the weekends, and a market that's now open year-round thanks to a local hall.

Meanwhile, our grocer is of a small chain and tends to get stuff close by when they can anyway.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I'm chewing on your OP, Louis, but honestly, given the current trend in US politics, I'm drifting into the apathetic camp.

If people in the country with the most powerful nukes in the world are stupid enough to keep voting in the nutbags (and the evidence indicates they are), there'll be a nuclear holocaust shortly and none of it will matter.

I'll keep chewing and perhaps come up with a less depressing answer at some point.

No shit, Sherlock.I despair of the willfully stupid.

--------------"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

For me, personal morality reduces largely to the Golden Rule, personal behavior to "In peace, there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility" and the rights and responsibilities of the individual in society were summed up nicely by Mill in On Liberty.

Most if not all of which is anathema to a substantial portion of the US population.

On governance, there are times when I almost find myself sympathizing with a line from the movie Cromwell which has King Charles I saying "Democracy, Mr Cromwell, was a Greek drollery based on the foolish notion that there are extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people.” But, on balance, like others here, I go along with Churchill's assessment.

In economic terms, it seems that industrial revolutions, going all the way back to the English one, have been - and still are - based on exploiting a pool of very cheap labor. The workers earn incomes that are markedly better than they got before - not difficult given that before it was often next to nothing - but it is the few owners who grew obscenely rich on the back of those workers. On the other hand, the trickle-down effect could be said to work. The average Brit, for example, is far better off in material terms than his or her counterpart of 150 years ago. How much of that is due to workers organizing themselves into unions to fight for better wages and benefits that they would not have got otherwise is hard to say.

The industrial revolutions going on in China and India to day are again based on the exploitation of pools of cheap labor but if that ultimately means that those people will become better off, who are we to complain?

As someone who would have been dead at any of about seven points in my life without modern medicine (including newborn respiratory support), it is tough for me to pretend that I might have a spot in a simpler non-technological lifestyle. Only an affluent society could afford to have me around. This kind of notion is developed in science fiction in Larry Niven's "Rammer" short story and follow-on novelization concerning the "corpsicle" concept of having oneself frozen to await rejuvenation when society advances. In Niven's story, the society that follows has no interest in restoring sickly bodies at the end of life, but has figured out how to decoct the chemistry that delivers a personality and insert that into a body that has been "mindwiped". A re-constituted personality gets one chance to dance to the state's tune, or they'll use the body to try out another personality that may be more pliable. Fortunately (for me, anyway), our society hasn't become quite so utilitarian yet.

Given that this may be a rare moment in the history of our species, I figure that my role is to use the capabilities and opportunities I do have to advance knowledge a bit, or at least pitch in to limit the damage done by the modern luddites. I can't claim to be doing anything that amounts to a positive outcome concerning carbon footprints and the like, but hopefully what we know about wildlife, what we know about artificial life, and what we actually pass on in education is just a bit better for my having been around. I don't think of myself as deserving what I've gotten, but I'm not continually bashing myself for an incredibly lucky draw in life's lottery, either.

I think you've hit a large number of nails right on the head. Ones I think echoed in a lot of the comments here.

Maybe the examples I gave were poor ones, or unpopular ones, or merely limited ones, but you make a very good point. Regardless of precisely which of the many problems one turns one focus to, being more a part of the solution than the problem is the crux of the matter.

For you it seems that combating neo-luddism and advancing our understanding of our world is the problem to which you have set yourself. I'd say that was a problem worth tackling, but then I might be a teensy bit biased! ;-)

Also, like I said in the OP, I'm not interested in the classic liberal hair shirt (or its polar opposite). I equally don't deserve my place and privilege, in fact focusing on whether or not I deserve it is (to me at least) a red herring. I have both to some extent regardless of my deserving nature. What matters to me is what I do with them. The narrow path between paralysing self flagellation and equally paralysing self assurance is a tough one to walk.

I'm chewing on your OP, Louis, but honestly, given the current trend in US politics, I'm drifting into the apathetic camp.

If people in the country with the most powerful nukes in the world are stupid enough to keep voting in the nutbags (and the evidence indicates they are), there'll be a nuclear holocaust shortly and none of it will matter.

I'll keep chewing and perhaps come up with a less depressing answer at some point.

The problem I have is I agree.

Mind you, when one considers inevitable heat death of the universe, we might as well go down the pub. People hate us big picture people! ;-)

I'm chewing on your OP, Louis, but honestly, given the current trend in US politics, I'm drifting into the apathetic camp.

If people in the country with the most powerful nukes in the world are stupid enough to keep voting in the nutbags (and the evidence indicates they are), there'll be a nuclear holocaust shortly and none of it will matter.

I'll keep chewing and perhaps come up with a less depressing answer at some point.

No shit, Sherlock.I despair of the willfully stupid.

I agree to, but you know... that's what they want.

They want us thinking people so frustrated and upset that the system doesn't work that we won't participate, giving people like Scott Walker power.

I try very hard to maintain my enthusiasm for fighting these types of people. It's difficult, but ultimately worth it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Other areas in my life have basically come together aaround this central point for me lately. Coincidence, but a somewhat disturbing one.

Please correct if I'm wrong, but you think that the imposition of one's standards or right and wrong on others is wrong. Is that a fair summation? I do not want to misinterpret you.

So my question is (and this is difficult to put into words as I'm still wrapping my head around it) what is the point?

Am I morally, ethically, or otherwise wrong for demanding that slaves be set free? Am I morally, ethically or otherwise wrong for requiring that my elected officials follow the law? Am I morally, ethically or otherwise wrong for defending the rights of people who don't even know they should have rights?

Honestly, it would be easier, I could go hide in a cave and ignore the world around me. It's a sucky place right now.

But, how can I live with myself knowing that I allow this stuff to continue when I can at least speak out against it?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Other areas in my life have basically come together aaround this central point for me lately. Coincidence, but a somewhat disturbing one.

Please correct if I'm wrong, but you think that the imposition of one's standards or right and wrong on others is wrong. Is that a fair summation? I do not want to misinterpret you.

It's fair, but overly simplistic.

The reason I see intervention on another person's standards as 'wrong' is that it requires two assumptions I see as being logically unsupportable. 1) the assumption that the person's standards and/or actions are wrong in some absolute sense, and 2) that your standards are somehow superior and will necessarily lead a 'correct' or 'right' outcome. How can anyone possibly know this?

I look at it this way - I can't come up with a way to honestly assess that my strong feelings against someone causing suffering come from anywhere different than Khadafi's strong feelings regarding how to treat his people. As such, I can't say that my feelings are more valid than his.

So to really answer your question, I believe that the imposition of one's standards of right and wrong on others is short-sighted and is usually the product of reaction to emotions rather than fully considering the possible outcomes of intervention and whether such removes the root problem or creates more problems.

Quote

So my question is (and this is difficult to put into words as I'm still wrapping my head around it) what is the point?

Am I morally, ethically, or otherwise wrong for demanding that slaves be set free? Am I morally, ethically or otherwise wrong for requiring that my elected officials follow the law? Am I morally, ethically or otherwise wrong for defending the rights of people who don't even know they should have rights?

No, or at least my opinion is no. But I'm not an authority on morality, ethics or otherwise concepts of 'wrongness'.

Keep in mind, what I put forth is an explanation of my own standard and my thoughts on the intervention and judgment of others. It isn't a declaration on 'right' and 'wrong', or at least I didn't intend it that way. I put it forth to give folks something to consider. I really feel that all actions and judgments should be seriously pondered before being made, not that taking certain actions are always 'right' or always 'wrong'.

Here's another example of my thinking on this: A man witnesses another man beating his child across her back with a belt. The first man - we'll call him "John" - feels very strongly that what the other man - we'll call him "Bill" - is doing is wrong. John runs up and grabs Bill's arm and says, "how dare you strike this girl so brutally!". As he says this, the girl runs away. Bill turns to John and says in return, "This is how my family and people were taught to deal with someone who disobeys and traditional rule! Who are you to say that the traditions of hundreds of generations of my people are wrong!"

To me, the actions of both John and Bill are 'wrong' in the sense that neither is using logic to address a problem and both are just reacting to feelings and traditions. I then use this example to try to remind myself to think about a situation before I react to my feelings concerning the situation.

So, the bottom line for me is that reacting to a given situation isn't necessarily right or wrong, but rather that not thinking and just reacting to a visceral response leads to more problems than the original issue.

So now let's look at your questions. Are you morally, ethically, or otherwise wrong for demanding that slaves get set free? It depends - do you really thinking you are morally, ethically, or otherwise responsible for the slaves? Have they asked for help? What are parameters surrounding the particular slavery? What are the likely outcome scenarios of the slaves being set free? Etc...

If none of the above questions matter to you and you think that all slavery is wrong no matter what and that stopping slavery at all costs is the only solution, then I think you will find significantly more problems in the long run.

From that I bet you can figure out what my answers to your other questions are.

Quote

Honestly, it would be easier, I could go hide in a cave and ignore the world around me. It's a sucky place right now.

But, how can I live with myself knowing that I allow this stuff to continue when I can at least speak out against it?

What do you mean you allow this stuff to continue? How influential are you really? I think you're being too hard on yourself and taking on more responsibility for the way things are than your domain of control actually covers. That's just my opinion of course, but I don't see anyone having the responsibility, authority, or for that matter individual power to craft the world in his or her image.

Be that as it may, I'll offer that you can only live with yourself if you can determine to extent of your domain of control and determine what power and resources you have to effect those things within it. Truly I believe that's all anyone can do to enjoy this life.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Be that as it may, I'll offer that you can only live with yourself if you can determine to extent of your domain of control and determine what power and resources you have to effect those things within it. Truly I believe that's all anyone can do to enjoy this life.

But how can I enjoy life knowing that there are people out there that are perfectly happy to take away my (and my family's) ability to enjoy life?

No, I know that I don't have any influence, which is even more frustrating because we life in a democracy. I should have a say, but I don't because my vote either doesn't mean anything or the effect of my vote is taken away by people with bigger bankrolls.

As far as the rest, it bears thinking on. I don't like the implications though. However, I will endeavor to come up with something that has some thought behind it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Be that as it may, I'll offer that you can only live with yourself if you can determine to the extent of your domain of control and determine what power and resources you have to effect those things within it. Truly I believe that's all anyone can do to enjoy this life.

But how can I enjoy life knowing that there are people out there that are perfectly happy to take away my (and my family's) ability to enjoy life?

Are the people who are trying to take away your ability to enjoy life specific people or general concepts of people? If the former, where do they fall within your domain of control? If outside they are outside your domain of control, why worry about them until they fall within it? If they are within it, how, specifically, are their actions effecting your ability to enjoy life and what options do you see available to you specifically for dealing with the problem? Of these available options, which one(s) can you foresee having the fewest associated problems.

Quote

No, I know that I don't have any influence, which is even more frustrating because we life in a democracy. I should have a say, but I don't because my vote either doesn't mean anything or the effect of my vote is taken away by people with bigger bankrolls.

Uhh...hmmm...do you realize you just offered a contradiction? On the one hand you claim you don't have a say, but then on the other hand you claim that your say just doesn't carry enough weight. You seem to imply that because we live in a democracy, your say should have more impact, but then I have to wonder what you think democracy means since it should follow that if your say has more impact, so does everyone else's say.So what are you really trying to get at here?

Quote

As far as the rest, it bears thinking on. I don't like the implications though. However, I will endeavor to come up with something that has some thought behind it.

I'll ponder more in the mean time.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Just for complete disclosure, btw, I will note that just because I believe that people shouldn't interfere with other peoples' actions we feel are wrong doesn't mean I follow my own thinking 100% of the time. My belief on the subject is a guideline only; it's a tool I use to try to get me to think about my actions. But I'm not perfect and I am sometimes (far too frequently imho) ruled by my beliefs and feelings at the expense of my sense and logic. I'm quite human. And clearly if I had this all figured out I wouldn't spend so much time contemplating such things.

I'm just offering the ideas my contemplations have lead to, not my discovery of The Answer, as it were.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Uhh...hmmm...do you realize you just offered a contradiction? On the one hand you claim you don't have a say, but then on the other hand you claim that your say just doesn't carry enough weight. You seem to imply that because we live in a democracy, your say should have more impact, but then I have to wonder what you think democracy means since it should follow that if your say has more impact, so does everyone else's say.So what are you really trying to get at here?

I'll just comment on this bit... still pondering, but I have a meeting in a bit.

Let's say I vote for x. Now, based on my pre-voting research, I think x thinks the way I do about things. When, he's elected though x turns out to not think any of that and has succesfully lied to me. Once in that position, then he has no requirement to do anything he said or act in any way that he said he would.

Further, x does not respond to my letters. He does not respond to the majority. That's what a representative is supposed to do, reflect the majority of his constituents. Of course, either he does whatever he wants to do (in which case no one likes him) or he supports the 51% of the majority of his constituents and 49% of the people hate him.

What makes things even worse is that I am fully conservative. I think we need a big bloody fence across the Mexico border. I think we need to get rid of the majority of welfare. Unfortunately, that means republican and I wouldn't for them if it was a choice between them and a wall safe.

That is what I mean by not having a say and my opinion has no impact. It's majority rule, even if the majority is 35% (split between 3 parties).

Personally, I think we ought to vote for concepts rather than representatives, but that's another issue entirely.

I also know that there is a great deal of fraudulent voting going on. Maybe not everywhere, but certainly in a few of the places I've lived. There are no checks, especially with voting machines. The data in the voting machine is assumed correct, there is no paper trail. Every vote in that mcahine could be 100% opposite of what the voter intended and no one could ever catch it.

Does it happen? Probably, anything that has that much money available will be manipulated somehow.

But again, we get screwed because we are moral, ethical people.

I can't fix it, which is another source of frustration. I don't necessarily want MY way every time. What I do want is some assurance that my opinions are considered. I want some assurance that everything is fair and correct. And I want illegal activity and corruption in high places to be punished, if not stopped outright. (See the Arizona senator who got out of being arrested on a domestic abuse case because he said that senators can't be arrested. Right or wrong, it worked.)

That kind of thing offends me greatly... and there's not a blessed thing I can do about any of it. The only people who can do something about it... won't.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

As someone who would have been dead at any of about seven points in my life without modern medicine (including newborn respiratory support), it is tough for me to pretend that I might have a spot in a simpler non-technological lifestyle.

Ditto. At best I would have been blind in one eye without modern medicine.

I don't spend much because I simply never made that much $$$. I lived a Bohemian life that involved hanging out at the free museum, going to discounted movies at said museum or the American Swedish Institute, writing and reading in coffee shops, and taking the bus. I suppose that my carbon footprint has been larger than it could have been, had I been more of a hard-ass about bicycling like other people in my life...

In a moral/social sense, what (largely) keeps me out of trouble is 1) my being an introvert, and 2) being quite sensitive to loud noises, too much stimuli, and the pain of others. I'm really quite sensitive and loathe violence or disturbing scenes. I don't gossip with other women and hate the whole backstabbing crap. I think people are out of their minds seeing The Passion of the Christ - my pastor described how one died when crucified, and that did it for me! I'm too empathetic to take such stuff: the first Lethal Weapon movie gave me nightmares.

I guess for me the question is not how I manage to live a nondestructive life so much as how others can lash out at each other as they do. (Excepting my sharp tongue in defense of teaching evolution, that is.)

I'm a rock; I just sit there, happy by myself. I was so still and quiet as a kid that people worried about me. The Buddhist in me, as Lenny would say, I guess.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive